We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge- from climate change to vaccinations- faces furious opposition. Some even have doubts about the moon landing.
- Joel Achenbach, Washington Post Science writer

Science and technology are foundations of good environmental, public health, and other public policy initiatives, but they can also be twisted to achieve predetermined results. Politics increasingly plays a role in "selecting" scientific data to fit an ideology and confirm what is already believed. True science is subjected to rigorous experimentation, peer review, and reproduction of results. While absolute certainty is virtually impossible, scientific consensus should always be subject to being overturned by more advanced research, testing, and discovery.

When taxpayer dollars are at stake, should the scientific research process be under more intense scrutiny in setting public policy? Should politics be allowed to stifle, or at least shape, scientific consensus? Is the role of science in public policy paramount in decision-making? And, what about the precautionary principal – should the lack of reliable scientific knowledge hold back developments in environmental, public health, food, and other potential advances?